"Oh, okay- so you're not lying to me about fake tits." When she denies, "yes, you just did. You said they weren't. You just fucking lied to me before!" Later; "they look ridiculous. Get rid of 'em, why don't you." "They look stupid (...) Keep 'em if you want (...) See if I give a fuck! But they're too big (...) They look like some Vegas bitch, they look like a Vegas whore! And you go around, sashaying around in your tight clothes (...) I won't stand for that anymore."

Lovely so far, right? You think he's done... Not by a long shot. He continues, becoming agitated after she gives him glib, nearly drunken responses:

"You fucking do- you go out in public and it's a fuckin' embarrassment to me! You look like a fucking bitch on heat, and if you get raped by a pack a' niggers, it'll be your fault! Alright?" Because...

She "provoked it." He says she is "provocatively dressed all the time! With your fake boobs you feel you have to show off in tight outfits and tight pants ('til) we can see your pussy! (...)"

And this one's the topper: "Stay in the fucking house! I'm not giving it to you but I'll let you stay there. Okay? And I will take care of my child..."

No surprises there, I'm sure. Since he's already outted himself as an example of every social wrong in the book (homophobia, antisemitism, religious fanaticism). Yet, I'll bet there are still a few stragglers clinging on to their "he's a good person" conviction just because he made a pro-Christian movie in 2004. And clearly, religion didn't do him wrong. He just used it as a weapon to reaffirm hateful beliefs he already had. But this thing shatters any lingering illusion of him as a person who can be defended. He's a bad product of this culture and deserves whatever negative attention he gets from this. To say nothing of potential social isolation and the complete destruction of his already pathetic career (What Women Want - where he proudly portrayed a clueless dad and a brainless chauvinist - was already enough of a red flag). I just really want to spread the word. This incident is beyond shocking. It may be a private matter that this woman has serious responsibilities with him and she has violated something he considered sacred in their relationship- but he clearly takes his frustration with her out on any woman he sees as doing something inappropriate. Why is it when people who lean to the right are concerned, they take it out on women or "Hollywood" instead of trying to do something constructive and discuss it culturally? Maybe even accept some of the blame unto the business / corporate side of American culture- which the right get upset (I'm using Michael Medved as a reference point here) when they think people have an agenda to criticise ideals being sold to them by corporations (money over people, deceptive advertising, rabid materialism, heterosexual-parent homes)... If people want to complain about Hollywood (Newsmax), look no further than this guy. Obviously, the guy has a God complex. And if he wants to argue that she has been gold-digging, perhaps he should realize people with his attitude often attract people who might want to take his house.

This has already gotten some attention (predictably) for containing the "n" word and maybe that's fair. Though I scoff at the trivializing of this rant just because of one word. He clearly had more of an ax to grind than just to say that. People never investigate the intention, they just immediately react. It's worth mentioning that I heard this following exchange spoken on Wednesday night, by people I knew:

Person 1 (agitated): "What the... Look- there's one over there!"
(I look, and don't see anything but 3 people walking down the left side of the street, one of whom is black- at this point, I assume it must be an amusing vanity plate on someone's car or someone driving an amusing car)
Person 1 (continues, in high pitched frustrated voice): "They're over there, too..."
(I look, and see what look like 2 or 3 more people walking on the right, 2 of whom are black)
Person 1: "What are they doing here?"
Person 2 (unphased by Person 1's outbursts, lazily replies): "Pretty soon, it won't be our country anymore."

So, all of the public outrage over the usage of this word in a clearly hateful context is understandable. But will it lead to anyone challenging the beliefs that have been programmed into our culture (much of it coming from the Bush ((Cheney)) Administration and Republicans-Conservatives in general)? Obviously not. Not if Person 1 in the example above can actually say something like that just a few weeks after we watched a History Channel special about the Ku Klux Klan. I walked out after a short time, disgusted by his hypocrisy.

_________________4 Disney Atmosphere Images

Last edited by Lazario on Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Funny thing is that I KNOW people who believed that Mel gets crapped on unfairly due to the movie he made in 2004. But I always found him suspect, and this incident does prove that he does have severe issues.

Pardon me for the black humor, but now all of a sudden I picture Disney's John Smith having this argument with Pocahontas... XD . Again, my apologies.

I'm gonna get slammed for this, but while I find Mr Gibson's comments inexusable, I believe he has definite substance abuse & anger issues. I hope he gets the help he needs, but I can't call him a "bad" or "evil" person. He's a flawed human being as we all are. There but for the grace of God go I and all that...

Yes he does. But does he care about getting help? He can always turn his condition around. Many people have (Drew Barrymore). But I don't think that will ever excuse his barely veiled personal beliefs about others. His career is definitely over. And if he gets the help he needs, that won't exactly correct his views on women, blacks, Jews, gays, etc. His eventual tragedy (I just don't see how it's possible for a person to bounce back from this- this is big) will probably be seen as a substance abuse tragedy. In this case, I believe he's one of those people who has turned to substances because he finds himself insufferable. Though his movies (including Paparazzi, which should have been a damning portrait of those filth of the "press") have seen him clearly trying to blame others.

I don't think his beliefs are the problem here. I'm sure he didn't get those beliefs overnight and all the years he held those beliefs they didn't cause anyone any problem until recently with his comments. It's a free country and he can believe anything he wants to but I feel it's his actions (meaning the comments) that are the problem here. His actions seem to be caused by substances and anger issues and were completely inexcusable. His beliefs are one thing but the anger and nastiness of the comments in regards to those beliefs are what really disturbed me. Sure, if he cleans himself up in regards to the substances and anger issues he'll still have those beliefs but they'll mostly likely be kept to himself.

I'm sure the anger and the nastiness are due to his huge ego. Which we all know he has. I'm guessing the success of Braveheart had something to do with how far he has taken things now. That without it, he would never have attempted The Passion of the Christ.

The hidden tone in the message I linked to really is, "what has happened to this country? It's changed and I don't like it!" He basically tells her you ruin my time out of the house (he says it's an embarrassment to be seen in public with her) and if she goes out without him, she'll be raped. So in his mind, he's telling her you have to do things my way or else.

And what is his way? That's what I wanted to hear people's opinions on. The situation in the tape. And if people think he's only treating her this way because she's really out of control (is there any truth in what he's saying? That's why I started this thread), I'd like to hear about that. What it really sounds like is that she could try, but he'd never let her get a word in edgewise. She's acting mousy and he's ranting (which implies; A- like a lunatic, or B- to incite violence / so, I'm glad you removed yesterday's reply which accused me of those things- I appreciate it) and some people hopelessly end up in bad relationships.

And of course we know how hip it is to dress like a hooker. So is he justified in his demand that she show him some more respect by not dressing in whorey clothing to get attention? Is he calling out Vegas "Whores" because he thinks no women should dress like that, or that it's fine as long as she doesn't do it too? He sure seemed angry enough at these people whom he didn't even know.

That's another reason I started this thread. Who's to say the reason he has taken out his anger on the people he has (in this private message as well as his very public movies) is not because of these personal problems he has? He obviously doesn't know very much about history or culture if he not only makes these statements but portrays groups of people in movies like Passion of the Christ so insultingly as such one-dimensional baddies that one has to imagine he did it to incite anger and outrage himself. Toward people who he thinks would take it personally.

One last thing about his ego (on a lighter note)... I did some critic-al reading today on his films. And he did in-fact play the main character in Braveheart as though he were Jesus Christ. That is certainly relevant to his attitude. From one review I found very helpful:

"Almost 12 years since its surprise Oscar victory, Mel Gibson's first epic exercise in bloodletting remains the most hilariously sexed-up piece of pap to ever take home the golden statue. Totally oblivious to itself, Braveheart is the ultimate ode to unspoken man-on-man love, its action sequences shot like a perpetual cock tease of penetrations and thwackings before the climactic war-cry cum shot. Which isn't to say that Gibson's own William Wallace doesn't melt in the presence of the woman he loves—rightfully so, given her heavenly splendor, a virtue the film has no idea what to do with—but there's something implicitly queer in the film's overexerted masculine camaraderie, in which buddies toss boulders at each other for sport and even the thrusting of a white hot steel prong into one's chest (so as to remove the head of an equally phallic arrow) is just another post-battle annoyance."

Gee... now I really wonder what was rolling around in Mel's subconscious when he said this in an interview almost 2 decades ago:

"With this look, who's going to think I'm gay? I don't lend myself to that type of confusion. Do I look like a homosexual? Do I talk like them? Do I move like them?"

Just to remind people of the beliefs he chose to make public. Now, he's a celebrity. And celebrities and politicans are a bit alike (to hopefully show you how those seeds you said I sowed are, in fact, related). We have the power to give them fame. And we have the power to take it away. Which we have done (for example; Michael Richards and Rosie O'Donnell). Some of them choose to make statements about what they consider to be the truth and the world around us. And some people have been utterly irresponsible with that job. Thus, I end with a quote from a very good review of Passion of the Christ:

"The Passion is the definitive George W. Bush feature, and can be noted as a product of its time. If not explicitly anti-Semitic, Gibson's images imply that everyone who disagrees with Jesus (or participated in his death) has got another thing coming, and anyone who questions why they should believe in his sense of justice ought to seriously contemplate changing their mind—even though the film posits absolutely no justification for loving or following Jesus. Or maybe you should follow this Christ because the Jews are so cowed and cruel, the Romans are vicious or inept or drunk, the homosexuals are mindless pigs, the women are so deferential with their perpetually lowered eyes, and if Christ is the only viable image of manhood and heroism in sight, then you'd better get down on your knees."

Actually, I'm not done quite yet... I would have said this yesterday had you left up that first reply :

I sure didn't start this thread as a plea for us to help this guy. If anything I did it to kick him (and by that I mean, his image) now that he's quite low down. But I'm not saying I won't accept opposing points of view, should they for example argue that Gibson was a victim of the system that taught us the values he was preaching. I don't believe in pure evil. That's only for fairy tales, fantasy, and Disney (where it can be fun, the forces of played up for coping mechanisms). I believe every person who preaches bad values has their vulnerable spot (not good side- vulnerable spot). And that our real-life, modern day villains (of which there are certainly some Democrats in the pile) are at worst, pathetic. Like Mel Gibson.

Julian- didn't you listen to the link I posted at the top where Mel spewed racist, sexist hateful bile at the speed of light? The stuff Ezterhas is talking about doesn't seem the slightest bit far-fetched when you hear just the way he talks about his girlfriend wearing tight clothes.

<center>WARNING :the following Threadcontains very graphic and adult language. But it's important to make because of obvious social relevance.

While I'm not a fan of such language, I applaud you for making it very clear what was in your post. If others around here that felt the need to use such language would at the very least do this much, I would back off a lot more about the issue. Courtesy goes a long way, so thank you.

Without reading any of what you wrote, I'm kept enough tabs on dear Mr. Gibson to have some idea what he's been doing the last few years. I think he's been loosing it, however, a lot of the things I've heard people say lately about him I've heard said about other starts with similar "career-ending" problems. Some of them have ended up finished, including, but not always the case, dead. Others, have been able to bounce back stronger then before. A certain "Avengers" star comes to mind right away. Robert Downy Jr. I think has become more popular and received more high profile roles since "the end of his career" then before.

I guess time will tell for Mr. Gibson. The few films of his I'm actually watched, I've mostly enjoyed. He is a very good actor and I'd hate to see his days of making movies come to an end this way.

_____________________________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.

It's interesting you bring up Downey, milojthatch, as he tried to use his case and current super stardom to support Gibson not too long ago. I'm not picking on him for that, I think it was a good gesture since he must have not had negative experiences with him personally, just emphasizing the connection you made.

I will say three things for Mel Gibson. I LOVE "The Patriot", ha. 4th of July would not be the same without viewing it for me. Two, I also enjoy his voice over work (Pocahontas and Chicken Run, I don't remember anything else). And finally, well, he's right, fake breasts do look stupid.

Seriously though, I will not defend him for his rants and disgusting viewpoints, nor the way he speaks to others, etc... I WILL say this, though. I think it's just as detestable to publicly post private conversations from people's personal and intimate relationships without their approval. That is a real invasion of privacy to me, even when posted by one of the parties involved. I don't approve of the way Mel treats people in the cited examples, but convos with girlfriends and family at the very least are private things. Proper and mature action would be to break up with the man, even saying why, but I think it's pretty bad the way people's phone conversations are always coming up in the news these days.

As for the Eszterhas letter, there was a follow-up article posted about how Eszterhas had really not been doing his job, faced consequences for it, and that's why he got angry and wrote an attack letter that seemed, in the context of this new article which included Mel's much more professional response, to be largely set on reminding readers of Mel's past offenses we were already aware of. Sort of a, "Forget about the fact that I'm not doing my job, remember how evil my boss is!" kind of letter, largely written for the sake of getting it out into the public. Again, that's how the second article made things seem, following the first article, which did seem like the usual Yahoo slander.

It may sound like I am slightly playing devil's advocate here, but I'm not. I've just become very against demonizing people, as it seems to happen as much now as ever. There needs to be some level of understanding. No one is a demon, no matter how much they can appear to be. If you really think about it, our whole system is wrong, because everyone who thinks and acts inappropriately (the significance depending on the nature of said "inappropriate" action) really is "sick" in a manner of speaking and needs to be treated as such. And, I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but we are more focused on punishment than treatment, I believe. We come to believe/think the way we do because of personal experiences, brainwashing (we've all been brainwashed to think one way or another), and stuff like that. People like Mel need some serious help, but he's still a human being, and I don't really think demonizing him makes us much better than he is.

I can't say I 'liked" The Passion of the Christ but I found it moving and inspiring when I saw it. I enjoyed Apocalypto very much.

Ah, yes, I seem to remember enjoying Apocalypto a lot also. As for Passion of the Christ, I found it to be a very good movie and not really like others describe it as purely a feature-length beating. I haven't seen either film in a long time, but I remember there being a lot of other scenes in it besides just the brutal stuff. As for the talk about it being an anti-Jew movie that paints the Jewish people as villains who indirectly "murdered" Christ, I really never got that out of watching the film, so I really think you have to go into it with the intention of reading that into it. I also feel that saying a movie about Christ, even this one, is attacking those who don't believe in what is presented is as ridiculous as saying a Hercules movie is attacking the viewer for not worshiping Zeus or something. You don't have to take it as more than a story if you don't want to. If you want to see demanding, offensive, downright scary propaganda, watch the "Thief in the Night" saga (you should anyway, as it is very entertaining if you find creepy propaganda entertaining in general, which I do). And, I suppose the Left Behind stuff is about the same, though I have only seen the first one and it's been a long time.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum